Everyone has rights, until society strips them. You as an individual don't have the right to take them away from others just because you disagree with
what the person is doing.
If you decide to strip rights from the criminals just because, then what makes you any different from them?

so when some sh@@bird strips me of mine i don't have the right to take them back?

i'm sorry, your rights end when you decide to interfere with mine in my home.

you know what they say about law enforcement, When Seconds Count, The Police are Just Minutes Away.
it is not your responsibility to render aid to someone that was trying to harm you and you beat them to the draw.
in fact had it been me i would have been adding insult to injury.

____ around, lose around.
is that painful, looks that way to me.
what kinda of bird don't fly, a dead sh@@bird.

maybe later i'd feel bad about it, but probably not.

If I were on a jury when that's the case. I would find you guilty of murder then. Or much worse in the case of the previous poster who fantasizes
about people breaking in so that they can disable and then dismember them.

Self defense is one thing, and guns sometimes kill people. If you did what you could reasonably do to get the person to the hospital and authorities
alive, then I don't see a problem.

Everyone gets a right to trial, in most cases trial by jury in order to tell their side of the story. Doing what you can to impede that process is
vigilante justice.

If the criminal is trying to kill me, I sure as hell have a right to stop them.

What you are suggesting is everyone just laying down and getting killed because it might "offend" a criminal if you resist.

No it's not. I said several times, shoot back. Incapacitate them and stop the threat. Sometimes that means they'll die, but killing the home
intruder shouldn't be the goal. Getting them into a condition where you're safe, and then getting them to trial should be the goal.

If the criminal is trying to kill me, I sure as hell have a right to stop them.

What you are suggesting is everyone just laying down and getting killed because it might "offend" a criminal if you resist.

No it's not. I said several times, shoot back. Incapacitate them and stop the threat. Sometimes that means they'll die, but killing the home
intruder shouldn't be the goal. Getting them into a condition where you're safe, and then getting them to trial should be the goal.

Stopping them is the goal. Practical measures would be a torso shot because it is the largest target and a home invasion is a high stress environment
and not conducive to target practice.

Plus, with our current court system, you might find a surviving criminal suing you for damages if that person is kept alive.

Far better just to kill the person than suffer a home invasion and paying for the criminals hospital bills.

Those thugs were lucky they got dispatched by 556.. I practice Filipino sword and machete art. I always have my talibong within arms reach at
night. Those guys had gotten into my apartment theyd have an unpleasant 20 seconds of staring down in abject horror and shock at their severed limbs
before sucumbing to exsanguination. Id rather get waxed with a ar15 than hacked or thrusted to death by a 18 inch long machete.

I try to tell people basically this.. I have seen crime scene photos where the weapon used was ither an edged weapon or blunt object and holy crap the
difference between those (sheer horror all over the walls, etc), and one's where the person was shot. I'd take a bullet any day over that. Anyway my
point being, firearms are humane.

If I were on a jury when that's the case. I would find you guilty of murder then. Or much worse in the case of the previous poster who fantasizes
about people breaking in so that they can disable and then dismember them. Self defense is one thing, and guns sometimes kill people. If you did what
you could reasonably do to get the person to the hospital and authorities alive, then I don't see a problem. Everyone gets a right to trial, in most
cases trial by jury in order to tell their side of the story. Doing what you can to impede that process is vigilante justice.

then it would probably end end in a mistrial, most people believe in the right to protect yourself. freedom of speech is not against the law, i can
insult you all i want so long as it's not hate speech or defamation slander. and rendering aid to someone who you shot that was trying to harm/kill
you is not a legal requirement.

hell even in ultra liberal new york city they allow you to defend yourself and will issue a permit to some for self defense in their home.

and another thing, what if someone doesn't know anything about first aid. you know your not suppose to move people that are hurt unless their in
grave danger, you take the chance of making there injuries more severe. chances are they are gonna die on the way to the hospital if you take them. if
you called 911 and told them you shot someone the the ambulance is already on the way. if you don't know what the hell your doing you can do even
more harm, like putting on a tourniquet. i'm sure some have put on a tourniquet on someones neck for a head wound.
you can cause the loss of a limb and then the sh@@bird will get a lawyer and sue you.
freaking liberal whiners just don't got a fricking clue.

you know what they say about law enforcement, When Seconds Count, The Police are Just Minutes Away.
it is not your responsibility to render aid to someone that was trying to harm you and you beat them to the draw.
in fact had it been me i would have been adding insult to injury.

____ around, lose around.
is that painful, looks that way to me.
what kinda of bird don't fly, a dead sh@@bird.

maybe later i'd feel bad about it, but probably not.

If I were on a jury when that's the case. I would find you guilty of murder then. Or much worse in the case of the previous poster who fantasizes
about people breaking in so that they can disable and then dismember them.

Self defense is one thing, and guns sometimes kill people. If you did what you could reasonably do to get the person to the hospital and authorities
alive, then I don't see a problem.

Everyone gets a right to trial, in most cases trial by jury in order to tell their side of the story. Doing what you can to impede that process is
vigilante justice.

You would be wrong... and would never make the jury in Oklahoma, the law is quite clear there, when someone breaks into your home, the homeowner has
every right to use any and all means to protect themselves their family and their property up to and including Lethal force.

I do not know how many times he shot them but center mass is the most likely point and 2 rounds of even 5.56 in the chest is going to permanently
wreck their day.

Also most people do not have a trauma bag in the house, which is what you would need to stabilize someone that had multiple GSW to the chest.

also if 12ga hurts you to much they make em in 20ga, and a 20ga can kill just as dead as a 12ga.

I own a 12ga I just do not prefer it in a home defense situation... with the stress and adrenaline I do not know if I could quietly rack a round...
and if I am about to get into a gun fight I do not want them to know before I start shooting.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Stopping them is the goal. Practical measures would be a torso shot because it is the largest target and a home invasion is a high stress environment
and not conducive to target practice.

Plus, with our current court system, you might find a surviving criminal suing you for damages if that person is kept alive.

Far better just to kill the person than suffer a home invasion and paying for the criminals hospital bills.

I think we need to change the weapons we encourage people to have for home defense. Shotguns are definitely good on the more lethal range of the
spectrum, but beyond that I would say military grade guns and ammo serve a better defensive purpose. Those rounds are designed to incapacitate more
often than kill, while the stuff we sell to anyone is designed more so to kill.

I'm not saying people need to do things like shoot for arms and legs, because that doesn't work. Shooting center mass, and shooting until the person
is down is the way to do it. But the ammunition you use to put them down is a big factor in this whole mess, and we're selling the wrong ammo for
home defense. Also, as I said, I think we're too lenient on how people act after shooting someone. All too often, people take the approach of
neutralizing the threat, and then finishing the person off (as you yourself, and several others in this thread have advocated), and when you cross the
line to doing that, I think the victim goes over to the dark side and becomes just another criminal.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
and another thing, what if someone doesn't know anything about first aid. you know your not suppose to move people that are hurt unless their in
grave danger, you take the chance of making there injuries more severe. chances are they are gonna die on the way to the hospital if you take them. if
you called 911 and told them you shot someone the the ambulance is already on the way. if you don't know what the hell your doing you can do even
more harm, like putting on a tourniquet. i'm sure some have put on a tourniquet on someones neck for a head wound.
you can cause the loss of a limb and then the sh@@bird will get a lawyer and sue you.
freaking liberal whiners just don't got a fricking clue.

I see no problem with making that part of the requirements to own a weapon. Gun owners always say education is key to safely handling firearms.
Shouldn't that apply to being educated about dealing with the consequences?

originally posted by: vonclod
An AR15 for home defence?..how many walls will that go through?, sounds like a dumb suggestion.

Not as many as most people think.

I wonder how many people on this board who comment on firearms actually have much experience with them.

Smaller caliber rifle bullets ( .223 ) are traveling very fast, and tend to fragment or yaw upon contact with a hard object like a wall stud. Proper
use of hollow-point or soft-tip ammo further enhances this effect.

Handgun bullets and buckshot are moving much slower, and will tend to pass through wall studs intact, though it does slow them down.

If we're just talking about wallboard/siding, the penetration tends to be about the same.

If we're talking about a center-mass shot with a properly selected hollow-point bullet, it's also about the same.

Long guns tend to be easier to aim and keep on target, therefore harder to miss with, whereas handguns, even in the hands of people trained to use
them, tend to produce more misses.

TL;DR: Proper training and ammunition selection make overpenetration almost moot.

Kudos to the gentleman in the OP's story for ridding the world of 3 oxygen thieves. Once they crossed the threshold of his castle, they gave up any
rights they had.

FWIW, I live on some rural land, and have anything from a .300Wby to a .22LR, and lots of stuff in between to defend me and mine, and I know how to
use it well.

No. I just have high expectations for people. Stable individuals who we can trust with weapons should be able to shoot until a person is down
without emptying a whole clip into them afterwards due to "stress".

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.